He

the arguments of his supporters, that high if he allowed the debate to close without prices did not produce high wages-that correcting these misrepresentations. scarcity and dearness were not beneficial had been charged with having misrepreand that plenty and cheapness were not sented the right hon. Baronet, in having evils. The right hon. Baronet's argument said, that in his Motion on the Corn Laws, also was that his alteration in the Corn Laws the right hon. Baronet stated that the prohad effected good-that this good was pro- posed change was not intended as a meaduced by a reduction of protection-and sure of relief for the people. He would that, therefore, he claimed to act on prin- word about the reduction of protection. state what he did say he did not say one ciples which had produced so much bene- word about the reduction of protection. This was his argument-he said the right fit. This argument was consistent with hon. Baronet had not done anything, acthe argument used by the right hon. Baronet the other evening, that all protecting Corn Laws, with a view to meet the wants cording to his own avowal, to mitigate the duties were in themselves an evil. Let and exigencies of the country, and to benethe House, therefore, observe, that the fit the people. He said the right hon. only difference between the right hon. Baronet, in bringing forward his measure, Baronet and his side of the House was, as had not brought it forward with the view to the time when the change in the Corn of mitigating the distress which then exLaw system should take place. The right sted. The right hon. Baronet's reason hon. Baronet proposed to keep the agri- was, that some protection which the landculturists under the harrow; he was de- owner then enjoyed, ought to be dispensed sirous of keeping over them the impend- with. And this charge he repeated. The ing change; and, at the same time, he right hon. Baronet had done nothing to acknowledged that the Corn Laws were meet the wants of an increasing population, vicious in principle, and must ultimately the consequent exigencies of the country. be abolished, though, at the same time, The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary the right hon. Baronet did not attempt to of War had asserted that the free traders urge the danger of delay. The hon. were inconsistent in their arguments, and Member for Bridport pointed out the im- seemingly did not know what they wantpossibility of finding a supply of food for ed; nor did anybody else. In reply the people if the harvest failed. The to this, he begged the right hon. Genhon. Member for Sheffield followed up tleman to read the debate that night, the same argument, but not the slightest with the speeches made by the free traders; attention was paid to the point by her and then to say whether he could discover Majesty's Government; with the danger any discrepancy in their views-nay, doubt before their eyes, with their eyes opened as to their objects. He thought, that there to the danger, Her Majesty's Ministers was such a general agreement as to the had apparently resolved to take on them- evil policy of restrictions on food, that he selves the responsibility of maintaining wanted to know how Government reconthe present state of things, and of follow-ciled their opposition to the present Motion ing out the course they had laid down. This was all he wished to bring before the House. He wished the House to see that Government was as strong in favour of free-trade principles as the Opposition. The right hon. Baronet did not deny the necessity or the propriety of a change in the laws, but the right hon. Baronet would not consent to make the change, though no one who heard the right hon. Baronet's speech, could doubt that in their hearts the Government thought that the repeal of the Corn Laws was for the good of the country.

with their previous professions. The right hon. Baronet admitted that if the Corn Laws were repealed, great benefit would be derived to the manufacturing districts; he should be glad to know why this benefit should not be experienced likewise by the The right hon. agricultural districts? Baronet said, if the Corn Laws were repealed, 800,000 labourers would be thrown out of employ. If 2,000,000 quarters of corn were imported, 2,000,000 quarters less would be produced here, and 800,000 men would be thrown out of employ. Who was to make anything of this sort of argument ? He would make one further obMr. Villiers said, he had been misrepre-servation, in reference to those hon. Gensented on one or two points, and this in- tlemen who were interested in the Corn duced him to trouble the House for a few Laws. He had no other way of expressing minutes; for he felt he should be wrong his opinion of their conduct that night,

381

Repeal of

{JUNE 10}

than by saying that they had run away from-they had not faced-the question. He had asked the hon. Member at the head of the Protection Society, why the farmer was embarrassed-what was his stateand what he proposed to do to help him? He had asked him to state the condition of the labourer, and to take the present opportunity of telling the House how his condition was to be mended. Had there been a single Member who had given the House an account of the cause of the depression of

the farmers ?

The House divided:-Ayes 122; Noes 254: Majority 132.

List of the AYES,

Ferguson, Col.

Turner, E.
Vivian, J. H.
Wakley, T.
Walker, R.
Warburton, H.
Ward, H. G.
Watson, W. H.
Wawn, J. T.
Williams, W.

Wrightson, W. B.
Yorke, H. R.

Russell, Lord J.
Russell, Lord E.
Scrope, G. P.
Scott, R.
Lord
Seymour,
Shelburne, Earl of
Stansfield, W. R. C.
Strickland, Sir G.
Strutt, E.
Stuart, Lord J.
Stuart, W. V.
Tancred, H. W.
Troubridge, Sir E. T. Villiers, C.
Oswald, J.
Trelawny, J. S.
Tufnell, H.

TELLERS.

List of the NOES.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Acton, Col.

Forster, M.

Gibson, T. M.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Christopher, R. A.
Clayton, R. R.

Clements, Visct.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Bernal, R.

Blewitt, R. J.

Bowring, Dr.

Gore, hon. R.
Granger, T. C.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Guest, Sir J.

Hastie, A.

Hawes, B.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Hayter, W. G.

Hindley, C.

Bright, J.

Brotherton,

J.

Buller, E.

Busfeild, W.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S:

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Chapman, B.

Christie, W. D.

Cobden, R.

Colborne, hn. W.N.R.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Collett, J.
Collins, W.
Cowper, hon. W. F.
Craig, W. G.

Hollond, R.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Howard, hon. J. K.
Howard, hon. E, G.G.

Howick, Visct.

Hume, J.

Hutt, W.

Johnson, Gen.

Langston, J. H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Listowel, Earl of
Macaulay, rt.hon.T.B.
Marjoribanks, S.
Martin, J,
Matheson, J.

Allix, J. P.
Antrobus, E.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.
Archdall, Capt. M.
Arkwright, G.
Ashley, Lord

Astell, W.
Austen, Col.
Bagot, hon. W.
Bailey, J., jun.

Balfour, J. M.

Bankes, G.

Barkly, H.

Barrington, Visct.

Baskerville, T. B. M.
Beckett, W.
Bell, M.

Beresford, Major
Bernard, Visct.

Bodkin, W. H.

Darby, G.

Damer, hon. Col.

Davies, D. A. S.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Deedes, W.

Denison, W. J.

Denison, E. B.

D'Eyncourt,rt.hn.C.T.

Mitchell, T. A.
Morison, Gen.

Murray, A.
Napier, Sir C.
O'Connell, M. J.

Bramston, T. W.
Brisco, M..

Blackstone, W. S.

Boldero, H. G.

Crawford, W. S.

Maule, rt. hon. F.
Mitcalfe, H.

Borthwick, P.

Botfield, B.

Dalmeny, Lord

Bowes, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Bowles, Adm.

Muntz, G. F.

Boyd, J.

Duff, J.

Duncan, Visct.

Duncan, G.

Duncannon, Visct.

Ord, W.

Duncombe, T.

Dundas, F.

Dundas, D.

Parker, J.

Easthope, Sir J.

Pattison, J.

Ebrington, Visct.

Philips, G. R.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Ellice, E.

Ellis, W.

Elphinstone, H.

Etwall, R.

Ewart, W.

Fielden, J.

Osborne, R.

Paget, Lord A.

Philips, M.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ponsonby, hn. C.F.C.
Protheroe, E.
Rawdon, Col.

Broadley, H.
Broadwood, H.
Bruce, Lord E.
Bruce, C. L. C.
Bruges, W. H. L.
Buck, L. W.
Buller, Sir J. Y.
Bunbury, T.
Burrell, Sir C. M.
Burroughes, H. N.
Campbell, J. H.
Cardwell, E.
Carew, W. H. P.
Chelsea, Visct.

Dick, Q.

Dickinson, F. H.

Douglas, Sir H.
Douglas, Sir C. E.
Douglas, J. D. S.
Dowdeswell, W.
Drummond, H. H.
Du Pre, C. G.
East, J. B.
Eaton, R. J.
Egerton, W. T.
Egerton, Sir P.
Emlyn, Visct.
Entwisle, W.
Escott, B.
Farnham, E. B.
Fellowes, E.
Filmer, Sir E.
Fitzroy, hon. H.
Flower, Sir J.
Fox, S. L.

Fremantle, rt.hn. SirT,
Fuller, A. E.

Gardner, J. D.

.e

Turnor, C.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Vane, Lord H.

Verner, Col.

Vernon, G. H.

Villiers, Visct.

Vivian, J. E.

Waddington, H. S.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Welby, G. E.

Wellesley, Lord C.

O'Brien, A. S.
Peel, J.
Protheroe, E.
Pringle, A.
Scott, hon. F.
Smith, J. A.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Sir J. Graham said, he believed it was | Newry, Visct. well known that dog stealing was carried on in this city to an enormous extent, and it was also known that the present Police Act was quite insufficient for its prevention. The possession of a dog was a possession recognised in law; and, although he was not prepared to support all the provisions of the present Bill, he felt that he should act consistently with his duty in giving his support to the second reading. Mr. Watson said, that, as the law stood at present, dog stealing could not be made the subject of an indictment for larceny; but it was punishable with fine, imprisonment and whipping, and surely that was enough to protect the pug-dogs of the old ladies of England.

Mr. B. Escott said, that the object of this Bill was to obliterate the wise distinctions made by the law of England, and to do so in the most cruel manner. He hoped there would be a division, and that the House would reject this ignorant and meddling attempt at legislation.

Sir G. Strickland felt opposed to the Bill. However, he thought that there were some clauses in it which aided the operations of the existing law.

Baine, W.
Brotherton, J.
Dennistoun, J.
Divett, E.
Duncan, G.
Dundas, D.

List of

the NOES.

Escott, B.
Esmonde, Sir T.
Fielden, J.
Forster, M.
Gibson, T. M.
Hindley, C.
Irving, J.

Loch, J.
Mitcalfe, H.
Mitchell, T. A.

Norreys, Sir D. J.
Ogle, S. C. H.
Ricardo, J. L.
Stansfield, W. R. C.
Warburton, H.

Watson, W. H.
Wawn, J. T.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.
Bright, J.

Bill read a second time.

THE COUNTY RATES BILL.] Sir J. Y. Buller, moving the Second Reading of the County Rates Bill, explained that the object of it was to enable magistrates in quarter sesssions to appoint committees from their own body to go from place to place, and to obtain information and returns, in order to equalize county rates. He avowed, that his measure was intended to make general the practice prevailing in Cumberland, and in some other counties. When the rates had been thus prepared, they were to be submitted to the quarter sessions for apFremantle,rt.hn.Sir T. proval. The principle of rating was the same as in the Poor Law Act.

The House divided on the Question that the Bill be now read a second time :-Ayes 67; Noes 23: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Clayton, R. R.
Clerk, right hon. Sir G.
Cockburn, rt.hn.SirG.
Courtenay, Lord
Cowper, hon. W. F.
Dalmeny, Lord

Darby, G.

Denison, E. B.

Ebrington, Visct.
Egerton, W. T.

VOL. LXXXI.

Forman, T. S.

Fuller, A. E.

Gaskell, J. Milnes
Gladstone, Capt.
Godson, R.
Gore, M.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Greene, T.
Grimsditch, T.
Hamilton, W. J.
Hamilton, Lord C.
Hawes, B.
Heathcote, G. J.
Henley, J. W.
Howard, hon. C.W.G.
Howard, P. H.
Hughes, W. B.
James, W.
Jermyn, Earl
Lincoln, Earl of
Mackenzie, T.
Mackinnon, W. A.
Manners, Lord J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Mildmay, H. St. John
Miles, W.
{}

Third
Series

Mr. M. Gibson contended, that local taxation of this kind ought to be taken up by Government, and dealt with on a com prehensive scale. The Reports of Commissioners showed that the whole local taxation of the kingdom was in a most complicated state, and required to be simplified. The Bill before the House would do little or nothing towards the remedy of existing evils, and still left the whole power of rating in the hands of justices, who were themselves parties deeply interested. He complained also that the principle of rating was unjust, inasmuch as it made house and town property pay at least twice as much as land.

Mr. Darby did not object to the Bill going into Committee, nor did he agree with the objections of the hon. Member for Manchester. In particular, he thought that what the hon. Member said about the

difference between the assessment of land | siderable extent. It was the nearest apand house property was altogether un-proximation that could be made to an equal founded. The land was always assessed system of rating, without having recourse to its full value, while houses were allowed a considerable deduction for repairs. That was a general principle all over the country. At the same time he thought the Bill, from its cumbrous machinery, with regard to appeals, would give rise to an enormous expense. He admitted the great difficulties of the subject, and he should have been surprised if its promoters had been able wholly to overcome them. He would not, therefore, object to the Bill going into Committee, pro forma, though he should probably object to some of its details at a future period.

Mr. Brotherton thought there ought to be a uniform system of rating adopted all over the country; but he did not object to this Bill going into Committee.

Mr. Henley approved generally of the measure, and thought its promoters were entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing it forward.

Mr. Hume wished that a Bill of a more comprehensive nature should be brought forward; and by the Government. He had formerly brought a general measure on this question forward, and he was then told that it was the business of Government to deal with such large questions, and he was, therefore, obliged to withdraw it. He hoped the right hon. Baronet, when he had leisure, would turn his attention to this subject. When that took place, he trusted, some provision would be made for the ratepayers having some control over the funds which they contributed. also wished that some provision should be made for auditing the accounts of the magistrates. At present they were the only parties in the kingdom whose accounts were unaudited by persons separate from themselves.

He

Sir J. Graham said, the hon. Gentleman was a hard taskmaster. On a late occasion the noble Lord the Member for London reproached the Government with discouraging legislation by private Members. Here was an attempt to legislate on a practical question by private Members; and the hon. Gentleman reproached the Government with not having taken the subject | into their own hands. With regard to the present measure he did not consider it as professing to deal with the whole question of county rates; but still it was a measure which would benefit the counties to a con

to a new survey altogether. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the magistrates not being trustworthy managers of the funds. He believed, on the other hand, that under their care the rates were faithfully and carefully managed. Perfect publicity was given to every part of their transactions, and considerable scrutiny took place into their details. He would go on to say, that the inagistrates were the persons who contributed most largely to those rates, and had the greatest interest in keeping down the expenditure. At the same time he must observe, that the whole subject of local taxation must shortly come before the House. The Report made on that subject by the Poor Law Commissioners was a most valuable one; and, looking to the facts brought out there-to the fact that in some places twenty-two different rates were levied-it was plain it would become the duty of the Government to look at the subject as a whole. He was satisfied, if that were the case, that a large saving would be effected. Still, he saw nothing in this Bill that would prevent that, and, therefore, he would support its second reading.

Mr. M. Gibson said, as his objections were to the details, he would not oppose the second reading.

Bill read a second time.

SMOKE PROHIBITION.] House in Committee on the Smoke Prohibition Bill. On the 1st Clause,

Mr. Hawes suggested that the 1st Clause relative to the appointment of inspectors, be postponed till the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Lincoln) with regard to nuisances in towns was laid before the House, as probably the same inspectors would do for both objects.

Mr. Mackinnon said, if they postponed this clause, it was equivalent to postponing the Bill altogether. He proposed to appoint the inspectors, subject to the regulations contained in the noble Lord's Bill.

The Earl of Lincoln did not think that the measure he was about to propose regarding the health of towns, would at all facilitate the present measure, as that Bill was to be entirely of a permissive nature, leaving it with the local authorities whether they would adopt it or not. He thought, however, it would be better to omit this